Hat tip to Dan Riehl for initially pointing me to this news story via Twitter. You can follow Dan on Twitter here.
Proposed changes to the North Carolina high school history curriculum have many people upset with critics correctly pointing out that the state is simply cutting out the first half of U.S. History.
This article on the Charlotte NBC affiliate’s web site includes the video of their news story on the controversy and gives a good synopsis of the controversy.
One quote from Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, really rubbed me the wrong way. From an article at FoxNews:
We are certainly not trying to go away from American history. What we are trying to do is figure out a way to teach it where students are connected to it, where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.
The changes being considered would apply to eleventh graders in the state, who currently study American history beginning with the nation’s founding. Garland would seem to prefer that this “big idea” understanding of America and why it is special be formed by constraining the young people of North Carolina to examining the second, far more statist half of our nation’s history. Educators are actually hurting their students and their country when they mislead our young people into believing that the Big Idea of America has something to do with labor unions or progressivism or redistributing wealth or the ideas of Fabian socialists like Wilson, FDR, or Obama. In fact, the most important concepts of American history are the founding ideals, and the key to understanding American Exceptionalism is in knowing enough about our history and our founding principles to realize how special this country truly is.
Remember that many of these eleventh graders will soon be off to face progressive (Marxist) professors who seem to hate everything about America except their own cushy and often subsidized academic positions. Authority figures like that are all too often a part of what Mark Levin correctly labels the counter revolution, with goals and ideologies that are diametrically opposed to our founding principles. Knowing that today’s high school students will be facing off against this bevy of Ward Churchill types tomorrow, we should instead be teaching the incredible historical significance of the revolution on which our country is based. It is vitally important to stress that the American Revolution was not simply a revolution against English rule. It was a revolution against the idea that people were subjects at all. It was a revolution against a long-standing and almost unbroken world acceptance of an inappropriate relationship between the State and the Individual. If students have only one take-away from US History it should be that simple fact. Many have correctly argued that the American Revolution was not truly complete until the abolition of slavery in 1865, and even that part of America’s history would be left out of the proposed curriculum.
An article by the Heritage Foundation argues that this history-finagling is SOP for the Progressives:
Early 20th century Progressives also taught that nothing before 1877 has meaning for today. In his new book We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future, Matthew Spalding recounts Progressives attack on America’s First Principles. The Progressives sought to remake America, so that the Declaration’s Founding Principles, the Constitution’s institutional structures, and the Civil War’s meaning as a victory for Founding principles would no longer ring true. The progressives argued that equal, natural rights were non-existent; government creates rights. They replaced representative government with the administrative, bureaucratic state.
There is no reason to believe that Ms. Garland or any others in the education establishment in North Carolina are part of a Progressive conspiracy to create adults without a deep appreciation for the Founding Principles. The unfortunate case is that in many cases liberal thinking seems to naturally, even if unintentionally, flow in the direction of results that are favorable to those who seek to redefine our country and in many cases reject its traditions and institutions. Whether sinister or just misguided, these proposed curriculum changes would force formative North Carolina students to build their perspectives of America – and their understanding of what makes America special – on a skewed view of America in which progress is presented as acceptance of Fabian socialist ideals and exponential increases in government involvement in the lives of individuals.
The potential changes involve more than just compartmentalizing the first half of American history out of the North Carolina high school curriculum. As the FoxNews article points out, rather than studying world history ninth-graders would instead pursue something called global studies which would focus “in part on issues such as the environment”. In a real sense this change seems to be an even wider version of the accompanying changes to the American history curriculum for eleventh graders. An appreciation of what makes the American experiment so special requires an understanding of the historical evolution of the country’s founding and the principles underlying its formation. Similarly, an educated understanding of the significance of western civilization requires a study of the history of the Greeks and the Romans and the British and their interactions with the other powers in their respective times. Though I have not been able to locate details about this potential change to the world history classes, the fact that the name of the class would change from World History to Global Studies suggests that North Carolina’s ninth graders are not going to be learning of Pericles or Hannibal or William the Conqueror. No, Global Studies sounds a little more… squishy.
In order for America to stay special, Americans have to know why they are special. Anything that seeks to undermine the teaching and appreciation of the American founding is a threat to the American Experiment. In fact, there should be an entire class on the American Founding including the Articles of Confederation and how its failures led to our incredible Constitution. That would certainly prepare our young people to go defend their country against the counter revolutionaries that we inexplicably permit to mold the minds of our college students.
On a positive note, at least one elected official in North Carolina has said that the state legislature will step in if the state board decides to implement these changes.
From a North Carolina educator, you apparently have it wrong:
“…this entire dispute is completely moot. This topic has been taken completely out of context. Yes, the proposal is to specify a date-sequence with which 11th grade history will begin. But this is intended to occur in tandem with an across-the-board revamp of history/social studies curriculum from 12th grade all the way down to 1st grade. Juniors will be able to begin with 1877 BECAUSE…(wait for the drumroll)…they will have already covered American colonization up until 1876 ALREADY! Plus, a lot of the Constitutional issues that might have formerly been a component of U.S. History are being rolled into a revised Civics curriculum, in which 10th graders learn about citizenship issues, Constitutional law, and the ins and outs of U.S. government. Nothing is being lost. It is simply being redistributed, ostensibly in a more efficient fashion. Right now, there is a lot of duplication of effort, like teaching algebra in both Algebra I and Physics at the same time.”
He also indicated that more subject material is continually added to the curriculum however the time to teach it remains static (the school year). This compels consideration/discussion of how to distribute the subject material.
But the main point is, nothing is being lost which suggests that your understanding of this “revamp” is incorrect.
That does not change anything that I said, Mason. College freshmen go off to face marxists and we need them prepared with a recent and in-depth understanding of our founding. I do understand that those of you on the Left are not as impressed with our founding as those of us on the Right. I have noted that for a couple of decades. The reasons: the Founding Principles [should] stand in the way of liberalism and a knowledge of American history arms one to deal with the historical revisionists on the Left.
I am certainly not impressed with what some generic “North Carolina educator”, who is almost certainly part of the teachers’ union, thinks about this. The last thing that the teaching establishment cares about is quality education.
An utterly disingenuous response. Your facts are wrong. Your theory about the horrors of marxist professors in our universities, such as it is, may deserve a platform, but from what I understand, you can’t wave this non-example as a vehicle to promote it.
Mason, “disingenuous” is not the correct word to use when you simply disagree with someone. I assure you that I am sincere about my position on this.
My facts are not wrong and when you can come up with something better than a vaccuous statement of support from an unnamed “educator” perhaps I will be more impressed. Perhaps your interpretation of the results of this change differ from mine, but my facts are correct.
We have to agree to disagree on this one. We bring our differing perspectives to the table, you coming from being a supporter of the Left and me coming from the Consitutionalist Right. So I would expect you to support something like this change, the Left loves to screw around with history. Frankly, it is the only way that they can try to justify their inherent statism and distain for the constraints of the Constitution.
As the guy who talks politics with everyone who is willing, I will tell you this: if you meet someone who can speak intelligently about their knowledge of the US Consitution and our nation’s founding the chances are overwhelming that you are talking to a conservative. Overwhelming.
Disingenuous because you aren’t addressing the main issue I have with the article. You’re pandering to your audience apparently with your name calling and posturing. Perhaps in a vain scramble to justify the length of time you took to write this piece? I’ll maintain my use of the term. It’s your prerogative to “screw” with the facts, it’s my prerogative to employ a term as I see fit.
You clearly state that history up until 1876 will not be taught under the new scheme. This is factually incorrect. That to me is a significant pillar of this whole article is it not? This isn’t a simple matter of interpretation. They are either being taught history through 1876 or they’re not. It’s my understanding that they will continue to do so.
The “educator” is a friend of mine who works in the North Carolina education system. He teaches 7th grade history if I’m not mistaken so he’s well aware of the changes being considered. It’s highly likely that he has a better understanding of it than you.
Another fact that is wrong, nowhere do I indicate support for this other than I think, given the facts, it’s a non-issue (not the same as support) and your concern for the proper education of children, on this point anyway, doesn’t play out. Interestingly the “unnamed educator” doesn’t support it either but for different reasons than your incorrect understanding of what’s actually being considered.
You should consider yourself fortunate that anyone gave a damn to consider your thoughts and discuss them with someone else to come to a better understanding of the issues. I mean, that’s the point right? So a little more respect for those giving time to your effort would be more appropriate than the broken record of potshots that is all to typical of your debating style.
You have so much potential but all too often you squander a meaningful discussion. It really is a shame.
I’ll have you guess at what these are.
Hint: 10th grade curriculum (Civics and Economics)
“Attribute U.S. national identity to precepts in the U.S. Constitution (e.g. Republicanism, federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, Rule of Law, Limited government, democracy)”
“Attribute individual liberties to ideals (e.g. natural rights/unalienable rights, popular sovereignty, civil rights, equality) derived from founding documents.”
“Analyze the structure of the federal government (separation of powers).”
“Analyze the structures of state and local governments.”
“Understand the powers (expressed, implied, and concurrent) of federal government.”
“Understand the functions of state and local governments within the federal structure.”
Post a URL and I will take a look at it. I looked around and did not see what you have posted. It is interesting that so many people out there “have it wrong”.
Again, please post me a URL. What you have posted thus far is anectdotal and everything that I know from dealing with government teachers makes me lean toward the belief that few of them would keep informed about *proposed* changes. Far, far too many of them are riding the crest of the Bell Curve.
Again, I do not want to do unnecessary battle with you but would instead like to see some hard data on your disagreement. I am wondering why you did not post a URL already when you called my facts wrong.
Sure wished FoxNews and WCNC would have done so. And what really makes the opposition to this look so silly:
A) It’s a draft
B) They provide direct links for feedback and encourage this feedback.
So rather than waste time in comment threads and polemic bloggery, the opportunity is there to directly address your concerns with the entity in question.
Statement on curriculum changes from Dept. of Public Instruction
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/newsroom/news/2009-10/20100205-01
Downloads of the proposed subjects are available here (and the source of my:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/acre/standards/phase2/
It’s not “interesting” that so many people have it wrong…it’s simply typical of a media that does a piss-poor job of researching and validating the facts before lighting their fire and driving their advertising revenue.
And it’s quite ironic that your article (and followup commentary) has no hard data but it’s significantly evident that I did more research than you:
1) Taking an opportunity to speak directly with a history teacher in North Carolina
2) Reading your blog post
3) Reading the Heritage Foundation article,
4) Reading the Fox News story
5) Reading the WCNC story (which is essentially the same as the FoxNews story).
…and last but not least…
5) A simple Google search on “north carolina curriculum changes”
The FIRST search result provided the second link I provided to you in the previous comment which leads directly to the proposed content of the curriculum changes.
…and you are asking ME for “hard data”?
Really Rob? I mean, really?
No, I read those links as well, Mason. At least one of them. You could make a valid point that I should have included more links in my post – I certainly read a lot more than I referenced. I have been thinking about putting sort of a bibliography list of everything I looked at at the ends of my posts. That is part of why I am considering starting to host the blog myself where I could have more flexibility with UI, but I digress.
I did not imply that these were anything more than proposed changes. But even in that first link, they do clearly state that they will not be covering pre-1877 history in high school because they feel that “the years prior to reconstruction would have been covered with students three times before – in fourth grade (as part of North Carolina history) in fifth grade and in seventh grade.” I understand that this is their position and they feel that it has merit.
However, the point of my response to these proposed changes was my position that we need to be teaching the core ideals of what makes the American Experiment so exceptional as we prepare these young people to go out into the world. I think that realizing why we are not just another country is key to staying that way. Under this plan their exposure to that is 6 years old in their freshman year of college.
Having said that, I will concede that your point that parts of the 10th grade Civics curriculum do help that to some extent. Study of our unique-though-presently-dysfunctional government is a part of our core identity. However, I stand by my argument that lacking pre-1877 history in the years before college (or not, for many) means that they get perhaps half of what they would be getting in the “American Exceptionalism 101″ preparation that I have emphasized.
But that’s about all we have changed from what I wrote to begin with – that they will still get some good related stuff from Civics class. The proposed history changes were not misreported.
Did you see this statement:
“North Carolina statutes require the teaching of foundational information about our history, including the Federalist Papers, the Founding Fathers, and so forth. Our goal is to continue that instruction and to increase the amount of U.S. History that North Carolina students learn in kindergarten through graduation. Draft 2.0 of these standards will be posted before April and will reflect changes suggested in the public input regarding U.S. History.”
They are mandated BY LAW to teach what you preach. This therefore further diminishes the relevance of your tirade.
“Under this plan their exposure to that is 6 years old in their freshman year of college.” – You (Comment @ 4:01 PM)
You don’t know that. Just like I don’t know for sure that the Essential Standard expressed for K.C&G.1 (Civics and Government – Kindergarten and 1st Grade) under the title “Understand the roles of a responsible citizen” will include instruction on the “founding principles”. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. But if it does, it will make your statement above doubly incorrect…literally, by another 6 years.
Admit it bro, you ain’t got nothin’ but a tempest in a teapot here.
“Proposed changes to the North Carolina high school history curriculum have many people upset with critics correctly pointing out that the state is simply cutting out the first half of U.S. History.” — You
And sorry Rob, try as you might, this is at best, a misrepresentation without any redeeming qualification to clarify or rescue the notion later in your article. In my opinion, it is more than a misrepresentation. You excelled in your freedom to speak but failed in your responsibility to correctly represent not only the intent of the Dept of Education in North Carolina but factually misrepresented that American History before 1877 would not be taught. You can’t escape that.
To quote one high school student in North Carolina (and I’m sure this is the case in other areas of the Union) “I already learned last year that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, do I really need to learn that again this year?”
This is what they were trying to address which is duplication of effort along with the demands of trying to insert more subject matter into the curriculum. With all reasonable consideration of the first order of evidence available, this is their intent. It is not some attempt by the “evil liberal left” to “screw with history”, “revisionism” or whatever pithy turn of phrase you would like to recycle.
Could you be any more ludicrous?
Stay tuned…
“They are mandated BY LAW to teach what you preach.”
That paragraph is about their entire education. It is not about requiring it in high school, which is my point and the point of my “6 year” comment.
“Admit it bro, you ain’t got nothin’ but a tempest in a teapot here.”
You are intentionally missing my point. I talk repeatedly about high school and you quote something about Kindergarten and first grade.
“Proposed changes to the North Carolina high school history curriculum have many people upset with critics correctly pointing out that the state is simply cutting out the first half of U.S. History.” — You
That is what I wrote and it is accurate. Many people are upset and they *are* proposing cutting out the first half of US History FOR HIGH SCHOOLERS though we have agreed that the 10th Grade Civics class helps.
“You excelled in your freedom to speak but failed in your responsibility to correctly represent not only the intent of the Dept of Education in North Carolina but factually misrepresented that American History before 1877 would not be taught.”
Under the proposed changes, pre-1877 *History* would not be taught in HIGH SCHOOL, which is what I have been talking about this entire time. How are you not getting that?
Again, the only difference between my original post and where we have arrived is the fact that the 10th grade Civics class helps. It does *involve* some US History but is not a pre-1877 American History course.
Wrong again.
There is more “mitigating” elements to be found for the 12th grade in the “Turning Points in American History” document.
One assessment prototype reads:
“To what extent was the election of 1800 a revolution? How did Jefferson’s actions as president reflect constitutional and political ideas of the period. How did Jefferson’s foreign policy and domestic issues interact”
– or –
“Why did the British government create the Proclamation Line of 1763? How did the line create tension that led to the American Revolution?”
– or –
“Why were European nations interested in colonizing America? Why were Roanoke and Jamestown chosen as sites of settlement? What is the difference between exploration and settlement? What did we learn although Roanoke Island was a failure?”
– or — (Humanities, 12th grade)
“How does Crevecoeur define what it means to be an American in 1782?”
– or — (continuing with Humanities, 12th grade)
“Evaluate changes in rhetorical and artistic expressions of identity in the United States from the early national period to the present in terms of logic, reason, faith and superstition.”
Also, you keep harping on this notion of the students must be prepared to enter the world with some understanding of the “founding principles”.
“Through the study of Civics and Economics, students will acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to become responsible and effective citizens in an interdependent world. Students will need a practical understanding of these systems of civics and economics that affect their lives as consumers and citizens.”
Keep in mind a) this is in the 10th grade and b) directly addresses this deep concern you have for “preparing students” for the future, directly even. It’s as if they knew you were going to publish to this blog on this topic. How prescient of these ignorant, stupid government, riding the Bell Curve low-lifes.
Stunning, I say.
I never called them ignorant or low-lifes, I just pointed out that far too many of them are of average intelligence at best.
Again, Mason, though you do make some worthwhile points the reality is that the history curriculum in high school would change from including pre-1877 history in History Class to excluding it. Some of the other classes do indeed help supplement that to a certain extent but the fact remains that they are proposing to limit their high school history curriculum to 1877-present. The fact that you can find history-related tidbits in other classes does not change that simple fact, though it does ease my mind a little bit about the NC high school curriculum.
Sure, some of the other snippets from other courses will help but the fact is that they propose to limit high school History Class to post-1877. Tongue in cheek, but next you will be telling me that since they read textbooks in math class it will count as literature. ;^)
“That paragraph is about their entire education. It is not about requiring it in high school, which is my point and the point of my ’6 year comment.” — You @ 4:57 PM.
So are you arguing they don’t introduce “founding principles” early enough? That they don’t teach it late enough? They don’t get enough exposure to these founding principles? That elementary and middle school installments of American history aren’t sufficient or aren’t as effective vs. being provided this instruction right before they jump off into the “real world”? Are we going to argue when it is best to introduce these principles or how long we should sustain this instruction throughout the students education?
And is chronologically sequencing through events between American colonialism and 1877 necessarily addressing this “need” you are describing? If I learn that so and so did this in 1776 and so and so wrote that 1764 and this battle happened on this date…does that necessarily mean we will be including this context of the “founding principles”? Surely we’re not going to split hairs and say they aren’t doing “enough” of it. No, it doesn’t. But most, not all, but most of those flipping out over this non-event seem to think so which is ridiculous.
Seems to me you can get straight to the heart of these principles without having to force it within the confines of “pre-1877″. As we’ve stated before, it appears this is actually being done so again I say, “What’s the fuss all about?”.
If that’s what the debate devolves into, this insistence and laser focus on how robust the romance issued for the “American Experiment” or how “exceptional” America is sounds like a presciption for “coddling” to me. “We have to make sure we are protecting the children!” This seems antithetical to the conservative ideal like how civil rights, justice and diversity are derided as liberal coddling. Not sure how they would described differently.
Damn. My point was about history curriculum in HIGH SCHOOL mason. Not in Primary School or middle school. And that fact remains, independent of our arguments about whether or not other classes brush up against history to one extent or the other. You simply disagree with my opinion of which specific history is important to focus on in high school history classes.
“This seems antithetical to the conservative ideal like how civil rights, justice and diversity are derided as liberal coddling. ”
I do not get that one at all. Genuine civil rights, genuine issues of justice, and genuine acceptance of (as opposed to canonization of) diversity are not things that conservatives consider to be liberal coddling. It is their over-political use that conservatives often object to.
Your use of the word “genuine” to qualify civil rights, justice and diversity, says it all.
When any group speaks of justice, equality and diversity, it must match the qualification, how your mind and soul defines it, otherwise, they are none of these things. And that is why, my friend, the American Revolution still continues.
You’re still not getting it at the same time you say I don’t. I believe I do but I’ll have to say your qualification about “HIGH SCHOOL” is a red herring. Are they teaching what you want them to teach or not? I get a reluctant admission that, yes indeed, they appear to be, in some way, kind of…I think…maybe? Cognitive dissonance much?
Now the argument gets impossible to make because we would be dealing with what we really don’t know…and that is, word for word, what comes out of the teacher’s mouth in the classroom and what words will be absorbed from the page of some book by the student and will that match the expectations (read: interpretation of what is important in history). Seeing as how most teachers are stupid, there’s no way for them to win in your world-view.
So with your foot on the throat of these idiots, you unleash this barrage of near nonsense railing on shadows. Not only are there a host of mitigating factors which pretty much pulls the rug out from under your argument, this enemy of yours is calling you to the table and beckons for your feedback. I just find that hilarious…epic even. Isn’t this process eerily democratic? Additionally, does it not in some poetic way, mimic the construction and deconstruction of the Articles of Confederation and eventual birth of the Constitution by welcoming this input and indicating certain that there will be subsequent revisions based on this feedback? Did THAT get any play in your piece? No, it didn’t. We’re to believe that the statist boogyman is gonna screw us over and destroy our children.
Puh-leeeeeze.
I went out of town for a couple of days and dropped the ball on this discussion.
First, your rejection of the word “genuine” to qualify civil rights claims means that you are just gullible, huh? Apparently you will buy anything belched out by race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
Second, your rejection of my argument as a red herring is bullshit. Let me give you an analogy. Let’s say that I claim that Chrysler cars suck. Then you come back with a bunch of data showing that Ford and Chevy do not suck and say that my focusing on Chrysler is a red herring. That is weak and is exactly what you are doing. Save that approach for the intellectual lightweights at DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground.
As far as your shrieking about feedback, etc, apparently you are unfamiliar with blogs, Mason. People post things and often other things shake out in the comments as has happened here. Perhaps you should get out more. Perhaps out of your liberal cacoon.
You wrote: “We’re to believe that the statist boogyman is gonna screw us over and destroy our children. Puh-leeeeeze.”
I never expected you to be impressed with my criticisms of statists BECAUSE YOU ARE ONE. You certainly do not see how immoral your liberal statist ideology is or you would not likely be a follower of that immoral ideology.
Oh the irony is too rich to pass up.
Enjoy: http://tfninsider.org/2010/03/11/blogging-the-social-studies-debate-iv/